Bombay High Court (Abhay Ahuja, J.), order dated 16 December 2025 in Interim Application No. 5652 of 2025 in Commercial Execution Application No. 218 of 2025, with connected Interim Applications Nos. 5386, 5382, 7381 and 7380 of 2025 in Commercial Execution Applications Nos. 219 and 218 of 2025. (i) Invoking the Circular dated 3rd August, 2003 and noting that the Applicants are super senior/senior citizens, the Court expedited Commercial Execution Applications No. 218 and 219 of 2025, allowed and disposed Interim Applications No. 5386 of 2025 (in COMEX No. 219 of 2025) and No. 5382 of 2025 (in COMEX No. 218 of 2025), and directed the Registry to expedite the execution in accordance with law. (ii) Considering an interim measure necessary for protection of the assets available in execution, 42 bank accounts of the Judgment Debtors disclosed to the Court (Karur Vysya Bank, Bank of Baroda, HDFC Bank, State Bank of India, ICICI Bank, Kotak Mahindra Bank, IDFC First Bank and Bank of Maharashtra; including accounts of Shree Tirupati Greenfield Developers (Respondent No. 1), Haresh Gurbaux Daulatani (Respondent No. 2), Arvind S. Gupta (Respondent No. 3), Sunil S. Gupta (Respondent No. 4) and related proprietary/partnership/HUF/LLP accounts) were ordered attached and debit frozen. (iii) Later the same day, the Judgment Debtor submitted that demand drafts totalling Rs.2,15,98,028/- together with Rs.57,76,950/- already deposited in the Magistrate Court should suffice against the total outstanding of Rs.2,61,99,435/- (as on 4th September 2025) and sought withdrawal of the freeze; the Execution Applicant, noting that none of the drafts had been handed over and specifically pressing continued freezing of Bank of Baroda A/c No. 76010200001135 (balance Rs.78,08,070.20), objected. The Court directed that the debit freeze order passed that morning continue until the demand drafts are credited into the account of the Applicant. (iv) The Judgment Debtor's objection that the valuation of the Execution Applications is below the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court was NOT decided; the point was listed to be heard along with the matters at serial no.18, Mr. Oka adopting the arguments concluded and recorded by order dated 20th September 2025 in Commercial Execution Application (L) No. 28531 of 2003, with the Execution Applicant to submit that execution of an award under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is not hit by pecuniary jurisdiction. (v) The matter was listed on 18th December 2025 for compliance of payments.
